“Mal nommer les choses, c’est ajouter au malheur du monde.” (Albert Camus)

What does it say about Europe’s moral compass when, in the face of mounting evidence of massive and far-reaching violations of international law, its leaders cannot agree to act against a close partner? Last week, yet another European Union (EU) ministerial debate on Israel ended in deadlock. Germany and Italy rejected Spain’s proposal to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which offers Israel considerable benefits in terms of free trade and participation in EU programmes like Horizon Europe. Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani argued that sanctions would “affect the Israeli population as a whole,” as if the alternative, inaction, did not dramatically affect the Palestinian population ‘as a whole.’ German Foreign Minister Johann Wadepuhl called the proposal “inappropriate,” offering no substance beyond the adjective.

Europe’s relationship with Israel reveals a crisis of conscience and credibility. Three developments make this moment urgent:

1. Netanyahu’s open contempt for the EU and its values, which echoes the rhetoric of Trump and Putin, demands a response.
2. Israel’s accelerating defiance of international law and belief in the right of might to reshape the Middle East by force alone creates dangerous precedents.
3. The EU’s claim to moral leadership rings hollow if it cannot hold to account for its unacceptable and illegal actions against a country with which it has an Association agreement.

A group of 400 former EU and national officials, including Ministers, has just addressed another statement at the EU leadership calling for a firmer EU stance. In a letter to the Financial Times of 24 April, 61 former UK envoys cited this statement and called for UK government action. A European Citizens’ Initiative supported by over a million people and a group of 65 NGOs led by Amnesty International has also called for action. Complicity through silence and lack of action undermines Europe’s values, but also its security.

The arguments used not to adopt sanctions against Israel are based on misguided views on what some call a ‘moral dilemma.’

The first pertains to the memory of the Holocaust. Germany’s restraint in criticising Israel is understandable; the weight of history is heavy. But does this justify remaining silent on the sufferings of the Palestinian people? Elie Barnavi, Israel’s former Ambassador to France, argues that the German attitude does not serve Israel’s long-term interests. Primo Levi, who survived Auschwitz, already in the nineties warned: “We must choke off the impulses towards emotional solidarity with Israel to reason coldly on the mistakes of Israel’s current ruling class.” Jean Améry, another Holocaust survivor, complained that “Anyone who criticises Israel’s actions is accused of antisemitism and ignoring the lessons of the Shoah.” Yet, as Tony Judt wrote in 2006, “The Holocaust can no longer be instrumentalised to excuse Israel’s behaviour.” Doing so does not honour the victims of the past; it betrays their legacy. Zygmunt Bauman, the Polish-Jewish philosopher, despaired at what he saw as the “privatisation” of the Shoah by Israel and its supporters, a cynical ploy to silence dissent. Abba Eban, one of Israel’s most respected statesmen, put it thus: “It is about time that we stand on our own feet and not on those of the six million dead.”

The second argument relates to Israel’s security. Israel faces real threats: the Iranian regime has called for its destruction; Hezbollah continues to fire rockets from Lebanon; and Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, committed the horrific 7 October massacre. But security cannot be achieved through collective punishment or endless occupation. Over 72 000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, according to Gaza’s health ministry, a figure now accepted by Israel; this includes 21 000 children, 11 000 women and hundreds of journalists, health workers, humanitarian aid workers and teachers. The United Nations and Amnesty International have documented widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, and this pattern is now replicated in Lebanon. Former Shin Bet head Ami Ayalon warned in October 2023: “We should totally change our policy and find a Palestinian partner. Our war is not against the Palestinian people. Our war is against the military branch of Hamas.” His advice went unheeded. Instead, Israel’s leadership has doubled down on rhetoric that dehumanises Palestinians. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant went so far as calling Palestinian citizens “human animals.”

Where are the politicians like Yitzhak Rabin, who said: “I fight terrorism as if there was no negotiation, and I negotiate as if there was no terrorism”? As Ami Ayalon pointed out, “You cannot bomb your way to security.” The bombings have not eradicated Hamas, nor have they toppled Iran’s regime. They have only empowered their hardliners. Bombs will not solve the Hezbollah problem. Violence begets violence. The only path to security is a political solution: reviving the two-state vision, engaging with moderate Palestinian factions, and ending the promotion of illegal settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The third argument frequently heard is that Israel is a democracy. And, yes, it still is, even though under siege. But does this mean that, provided you are a democracy, you can flout international law, occupy land illegally, and use disproportionate violence? Besides, Israel is not a democracy for the Palestinians under occupation. The recent law passed by the Knesset mandating the death penalty only for the Palestinians when convicted of fatal attacks is openly discriminatory and at odds with the EU values underlying the Association Agreement. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both repeatedly concluded that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid. As David Grossman, the Israeli writer, told Le Soir in October 2023: “We like to think of ourselves as a democracy, but you cannot really be one if you govern and occupy another people for 56 years. Being a democracy and an occupying power is a paradox.”The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem considers that “Israel’s regime of apartheid and occupation is inextricably bound up in human rights violations. B’Tselem strives to end this regime, as that is the only way forward to a future in which human rights, democracy, liberty, and equality are ensured to all people, both Palestinian and Israeli, living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.”

Minister Tajani argues that sanctions would punish the entire Israeli population. But is that not what we do with Russia? Or Iran? And is it not true that, in a democracy, the population bears more direct responsibility for the actions of its government than in autocracies? Israel’s current coalition includes figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, openly racist far-right ministers who advocate for a (Jewish) state “from the river to the sea”, a vision that denies Palestinians their most basic rights and is the mirror image of Palestinian extremists calling for a Palestinian state from the river to the sea.

Victor Hugo’s words after the sacking of the Summer Palace in Beijing in 1860 by French and British troops come to mind: “One day, two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One looted, the other burned. And they returned to Europe, arm in arm, laughing. Such is the history of the two bandits. We, the Europeans, are the civilised ones, and for us, the Chinese are the barbarians. This is what civilisation has done to barbarism.” Today, as Israel’s leaders frame their war as a battle between “civilisation and barbarism,” the irony is bitter.

The EU would enhance its moral status and its global role if only it spoke up and acted by:

• Rejecting the false choice between supporting Israel’s right to existence and standing for Palestinian rights. Both are possible. Both are necessary.
• Condemning Israel’s response in Gaza as a disproportionate, indiscriminate war against a trapped civilian population.
• Calling the realities by their name: occupation, apartheid, collective punishment, war crimes, and, possibly, crimes against humanity and genocide.
• Supporting the International Criminal Court’s investigations.
• Suspending the Association Agreement or at least parts of it and activating its Article 79.
• Pushing for a renewed peace process leading to a two-state solution.

Europe’s credibility hinges on this. If it allows the memory of the Holocaust to be weaponised to justify new injustices, it dishonours its victims. If it stays silent and passive as a close partner flouts international law, it becomes complicit. Albert Camus was right: “To misname things is to add to the world’s misery.” Europe must find the courage to call things by their name and to act accordingly. If it cannot stand up for its own principles now, when will it?